THE ROOKERY, DUKES DRIVE, ASHFORD IN THE WATER, BAKEWELL, DERBYSHIRE, DE45 1QQ

ANDREW SHEPHERD, ARCHITECT

453 GLOSSOP ROAD SHEFFIELD S10 2PT

Telephone 0114 266 2458 Email info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk

January 2017 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ROOKERY, DUKES DRIVE, ASHFORD IN THE WATER, BAKEWELL, DERBYSHIRE DE45 1QQ

1.00 INSTRUCTIONS

1.01 A.D.W. Shepherd, Dip. Arch., Dip. Cons., R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., I.H.B.C. of Andrew Shepherd, Architect is instructed by Mr. & Mrs. Richard Mayson, as householders of the Rookery, to develop the historical information they have already obtained about their home, and to utilise that information in providing a Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed alterations to their home as designed by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. of EG2 Norway Wharf, 24 Hertford Road, London N1 5QT.

1.02 Initial desk study took place in December 2015. A detailed inspection of the buildings was made on 6th June 2016, commencing around 10.00 a.m., when the weather was dry, bright and sunny.

1.03 Further archive study was carried out between July and November 2016 at Chatsworth House, and the Derbyshire County Council Archives in Matlock.

Frontispiece is a reproduction of a watercolour of The Rookery from the West by William Cannon, 1828, held by the Chatsworth Estate Archives. 2.00 LOCATION

2.01 The Rookery is a substantial dwelling with various outbuildings located to the West of the centre of the village of Ashford in the Water, which is approximately two miles to the West of Bakewell.

2.02 The building is located in the limestone area of the Peak District National Park.

2.03 The building is located on the former main trunk road from Bakewell to Buxton, but the modern A6 trunk road now passes to the South of the property on land acquired from the Rookery's curtilage from the Chatsworth Estate during the 1930's. This is known as Dukes Drive. There was formerly a road on the North side of the house marked as being "To Sheldon" or "Buxton Road".

The River Wye passes through the curtilage, flowing from West to East.

2.04 The location of the building is shown on the location plans attached. 3.00 DESIGNATION

3.01 The Rookery was designated at Grade 2 on 12th July 1967, reference UID80445. The designation reads:

"The Rookery GVII

House. Late C18, probably with earlier core. Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings. Stones laid to roof. Stone, tall gable end, ridge and side wall stacks. Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west. Two storeys, irregular plan, five bay front elevation. To west, advanced cross wing with full height canted bay window. Plain sashes on three sides in plain surrounds. To east lower wing with blocked central door case with bracketed stone hood. To west, glazing bar sash in plain surround and another flush door case with bracketed stone hood under wooden porch. C18 glazed and panelled door. To east, wide 3-light flush mullion window with plain sashes. Above, similar window with glazing bar sashes. To west three glazing bar sashes in plain surrounds. Beyond, to west, string course over plain sashes with canted Venetian bay window above. Glazing bar sashes. String course running from impost level of central light. To rear, 2-light, double transomed stair window. Interior – hall floor and stairs of Monyash marble. Various C18 fireplaces.

Listing NGR: SK1923569684".

3.02 The access bridge over the River Wye flowing entirely within the curtilage of the property is also a designated heritage asset:

"Bridge at The Rookery GVII

Bridge. C18. Coursed limestone rubble with gritstone dressings. Four arches with projecting keystones, two central segmental ones, with narrow, styled, semi-circular headed arches to either side. Rubble parapet walls over, splaying outwards to each end. Square sectioned copings. Wooden gate to south side.

Listing NGR: SK1922769630"

3.03 The adjacent Rookery Cottage is also designated in its own right:

"Rookery Cottage GII

Cottage. C18. Coursed limestone rubble. Gritstone dressings. Stone slate roof to front, slate to rear. Short. Stone gable end stacks. Stone coped gable with moulded kneeler to west. Two storeys, double pile plan, three bays. Advanced, central, full height canted bay with pyramidal roof and central segmental headed door case with plank door. To east, formerly 3-light flush mullion window, now with horizontal sliding sashes. To west, 2-light flush mullion window with c20 leaded lights. Beyond, plank door in flush surround. Above, 2-light flush mullion windows with original leaded lights, either side of bay window. Glazing bar sashes to three sides of bay and plain sill band. To rear blocked 2-light mullion and transomed stair window. Various 2-light flush mullion windows.

Listing NGR: SK1923569684". 3.04 There is also a substantial former Barn within the curtilage of the Rookery, subsequently converted to a coach house, and converted to domestic accommodation in recent years, so this is also offered the same protection as the designated building.

3.05 In past times the Rookery Cottage has been in different ownership to the Rookery, but the current owners have reacquired the building and its grounds to reinstate a substantial part of the original site. 4.00 SUMMARY STATEMENT

4.01 The historical and association interest of the building is recognized by there being a written and limited photographic record of the building in the National Monuments Records, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive. A copy of this document is attached at Appendix A.

4.02 The house and outbuildings are obviously of considerable historic and social interest. The interest of the present owners has led them to commission the research which has informed the report. That takes the form of documentary study, and the use of map regression to give an understanding of the development of the building as a dwelling for the eighteenth to twenty first centuries.

4.03 As the former possession of one of the great aristocratic estates of the country there are much better archives of that history than for most houses of this size.

4.04 The tithe and Chatsworth Estate maps show the extent of the original Rookery estate at the time of the Sixth Duke of Devonshire, and its subsequent reduction.

4.05 These documents also show the development of the village of Ashford in the Water along the former Buxton Road to the West of the village centre, though the Rookery remains the most Westerly house, except for the former Manger's House of the Ashford Marble Mill to the South and West.

4.06 Those documentary sources, and the photographic records available, show beyond doubt that there was a substantial ancillary outbuilding to the North of the main house range, between that and the former Buxton Road.

The current owners of the Rookery have a young family and seek to provide more space for their developing activities. The restoration or restitution of that former ancillary outbuilding would satisfy that need.

4.07 In September 2015 Pre-Application Advice was offered to the owners, architects, Lisa Shell Architects Ltd., that the then current proposals would be unlikely to obtain the necessary consents. Advice as to how to possibly make the proposals acceptable was offered, further to the acceptance of the principle of the proposal in general terms.

The applicants and their architects have now revised their proposals to accord with that advice offered by the Local Planning Authority.

4.08 For historic interest, and to demonstrate the understanding of the significance of the heritage asset and its constituent elements, this report includes a fully illustrated description of all of the spaces in the house and the external fabric. It is hoped that this amount of detail will show the Local Planning Authority that the applicants for the changes proposed and their agents fully understand the asset, and that understanding has informed the current revised proposals.

4.09 Section 11.00 sets out our understanding of the relevant Town and Country Planning policies and guidance, from both national and local perspectives, and Section 12.00 tests the proposals against those policies and guidance and shows compliance.

4.10 The report concludes with a reiteration of the Applicants' needs for change at their home, and the suggestion that their revised and reduced requirements can be achieved without affecting the special qualities which give this place its heritage significance.

## CONTENTS LIST

| Section | Title | Page | |---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | 1.00 | Instructions | 1 | | 2.00 | Location | 2 | | 3.00 | Designation | 4 | | 4.00 | Summary Statement | 6 | | 5.00 | Contents | 7 | | 6.00 | Acknowledgements, Bibliography and Copyright | 8 | | 7.00 | Historical Development | 9 | | 8.00 | Building Form | 34 | | 9.00 | Details of Change Proposed | 36 | | 10.00 | Detailed Fabric Survey | 46 | | | (Photographs | 56 | | 11.00 | Published Policies and Guidance | 92 | | 12.00 | Assessment | 103 | | 13.00 | Conclusions | 106 |

### Appendices

**Appendix A**\
Report of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England: Building Report BF 08622 dated November 2016.

**Appendix B**\
R. Mayson: "The Rookery at Ashford in the Water: a short history" (Unpublished) dated 2016. 6.00 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES AND COPYRIGHT

Mr. and Mrs. R. Mayson Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. The Chatsworth Estate retain copyright in all images supplied. Derbyshire County Records Office retain copyright in all images supplied. The National Library of Scotland retain copyright in all images supplied. Historic England in succession to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England retain copyright for the report included in Appendix A.

T. Brighton: "The Ashford Marble Works and Cavendish Patronage, 1748-1905", Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society Vol. 12, Number 6, Winter 1995.

Campaign to Protect Rural England: "Solar Design Tips: Your 10 point guide". London, undated.

English Heritage: "Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment", London, 2008.

Historic England: "Making Changes to Heritage Assets: Advice Note 2", Swindon, 2016.

Historic England: "The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Advice in Planning 3", Swindon, 2015.

Historic England: "Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice", Swindon, 2016.

National Planning Policy Framework: Outline Resource and Planning Guidance @www.planningportal.co.uk accessed at various times.

Peak District National Park Authority: "Design Guide", Bakewell, 2007.

I. Thomas: "Strategic Stone Study: A Building Stone Atlas of Derbyshire and the Peak National Park", English Heritage, London, 2011.

I. Thomas & M. Cooper: "The Geology of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire", Mercian Geologist, 2008, Vol. 17 (1).

All Ordnance Survey maps (dated as shown) C. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number LIG 1260.

Andrew Shepherd, Architect assert their right under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 11988 to be identified as the author of this work, c. 2017. 7.00 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

7.01 Published Sources

The principal source is the report from 1992 of the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments, now subsumed into the Historic England Archive. (ref. BF 086022 and 086022/1). That document is attached at Appendix A.

The historic buildings designation description is as stated previously.

The present owners' researches are attached at Appendix B.

There is no reference to the building in the recently revised Derbyshire volume of the "Buildings of England" series originated by Nikolaus Pevsner.

7.02 History as Published Sources

The earliest history of the dwelling as found is the record of its purchase by the Duke of Devonshire in 1821 when the 6th Duke of Devonshire bought the property for £3,000 from the Estate of John Bullock. In 1822 the Chatsworth Estate paid his Executors a further £21 8s 8d for "sundry fixtures". History records that the tenant was one of his mistresses, all as set out in the document appended at Appendix B.

After that relationship ended, the house was retained by the Chatsworth Estate and was then tenanted. This continued until the Second World War, when the then cadet son of the then Duke of Devonshire lived there, or rather, his wife and young family lived there. Through a wartime tragedy they subsequently became the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, as described in Appendix B. The house and grounds were subsequently sold into successive private ownerships after 1951.

7.03 Analysis of Historic Map Evidence (Regression)

1. The Architect for the proposed restitution of a former outbuilding carried out initial maps regression showing the existence of the outbuilding and her drawing is attached.

2. In addition to the Ordnance Survey drawings of the locality after 1850, I have been able to find various other maps in both the Derbyshire County Records Office, and the Chatsworth Estate Archive.

3. The earliest is from 1752, being "A Survey Plan of Ashford Lordship, showing demesnes, freehold and copyhold lands". The map is a little difficult to interpret, as the "Explanation" panel is very damaged. The map does show a house (all houses are represented by the same charming 3D symbol) on the present location of the Rookery. (Image Map A). To the North of the house there is a track marked, which subsequently became the Buxton Road. To the East of the Rookery site, along that road are further dwellings.

The Marble works site outside the North West corner of the present curtilage is marked with two "Mill-type" building symbols. (Map B)

There is extensive woodland all around the housing, particularly to the North and South sides. 03. There exists an Enclosure Map Award of 1767, which is referred to in the Enclosure Award of the same year of the three Commissioners, Wm. Wyatt, Sam Brailsford and Sam White.

The present site of the Rookery is marked as an 'Old Inclosure'. No buildings are shown. The "Marble Machine Works" are denoted, as is the River Wye. (Map C).

4. There is an Ashford Town Map of 1824. By this time the plan of the house as represented is very much as it survives today, with the West crossing and the North East offshot wing existing. (Map D).

The Barn and what is now known as Rookery Cottage are marked.

The bridge over the River Wye to the South is clearly marked, but the principal entrance to the property appears to have been from the North, from what was then marked as the "Road to Sheldon". The Chatsworth Estate map of 1824 is identical, except that there are presumed proposed plots for development marked to the East and South sides of the house. 05. There is a further Ashford Tithe Map of 1847, (Map E), and the Schedule. The Commissioners F.T.(?)W. Bullen and Rd. Jones set out their apportionment of the rent charge to be paid by each property in lieu of tithes, for the Township of Ashford.

The map shows the main body of the house as extended, with the bay to the South front of the West crossing quite clearly marked, and a further building on the site of the proposed reconstruction.

The paths through the Rookery grounds towards the West side of the curtilage are clearly shown. Another Estate map of 1857 prepared for the Duke of Devonshire shows the same curtilage and buildings. (Map F). Map G

Map G is an Estate map, prepared after the first Ordnance Survey in 1883 which shows the extent of the curtilage of the Rookery at the time which was very much more extensive than that today. It obviously included "pleasure grounds" and an extensive orchard with walks to the East side.

Map H shows the detail of the house and outbuildings. The two outbuildings to the North side of the house are quite clearly shown, including the building it is now proposed to reconstruct.

Map J seems to indicate that the Chatsworth Estate had sold off some of the original landholding, which seems to have been denoted as a further orchard with walks.

Map K shows the garden to the West of the house, but there is no indication of the Ice House or Grotto, which would have been built by this time. Map L shows the very extensive scope of the Marble Works to the West of the overall site, with a fairly complex system of goyts and buildings.

08. The first Ordnance Survey of this area in Derbyshire was apparently not until 1878, followed by the publication of the map in 1883 at the scale of 6" (inches) to 1 mile. This shows the layout of the buildings, as it remains today, except that the detached outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct then still remained. This map seems to have been used as the basis of a Chatsworth Estate map. (Map G).
09. Presumably because of inaccurate cartography, the (presumed) outbuilding to the North side of the house is not shown as a separate building from the Ordnance Survey maps after 1889, but as an attached part of the building. (Map N). This is continued/followed on the O.S. maps of 1923 (map P) and 1946 (map Q).
10. The best evidence of the existence of the building which it is now proposed to reconstruct is photographs. Two aerial view are shown below.

The first shows the outbuilding set into a wall against the bank and the modern trunk road behind/above.

The other shows very much more tree cover than today on the bank behind the building.

From the view of the rear roof slope of the main range of the house, this would seem to predate the alterations to the roof known to have been carried out in the mid 1970's. 7.04 Primary Research

As stated previously, principal primary research had been in the Archives of the Chatsworth Estate and the Derbyshire County Records Office.

What might be described as the "social history" has already been researched by the present building owners. (Appendix B).

1. Sadly, most of the earliest records, such as the Account of the Tithes of Ashford of 1799, the lists of Copyholders in Ashford in the Water of 1830, and the Copyhold Tenants list of 1849, do not describe the names of the properties reported, merely the names. There are no references to any of the names of the tenants, or the Rookery itself.

2. The survey and valuation of the Duke of Devonshire's Chatsworth Estate carried out by John Cottingham in 1829 states what is assumed to be the Marble Works were then let to Richard Brown from 25th March 1830 (the quarter day) at £70 per annum:

There is, also, in that 1829 survey a reference to the Rookery. This states it to have been purchased "of Bullock", with an annual rental of £3 - 2 - 11, and a value of £40 - 0 - 0.

By the time of the 1844 (anonymous) survey and valuation, the property was not described as being "in hand" to the Duke, though the property remained within the Chatsworth Estate until it was sold in the 1950's as the Estate liquidated assets so as to raise death duties for the Revenue.

3. By the time of the 1858 valuation of the Duke's estates at Ashford, Sheldon, Holme, Bakewell and Over Haddon the property was let to Edmund Howarth at a yearly value (rent to the Duke?) of £60 - 2 - 0.

The Rookery is described:

"60 The Rookery. Stone and Slated. Dining Room, Drawing Room, Study, Butler's Pantry, Servants' Hall, Kitchen, Pantry, Larder, four principal Bedrooms and Coach House, Stable and Servants' cottages - all in order".

Edmund Howarth was also the tenant of:

"59 Garden 61 Croft 62 Pleasure Grounds".

These plots are noted on the map below, held in The Chatsworth Archive and thought to date from 1857: By this time it would seem that the Marble Works, described as the "Magpie Mine" was let by the Chatsworth Estate to "The Proprietors of Magpie Mine", including a house and yard at a combined yearly value (to the Duke) of £60 - 2. - 0.

The first mention of Edmund Howarth as the tenant of the Rookery was in 1852, with a rental of £50 - 0 - 0 per annum. This was a high value, as the Duke's lime kilns in Stoney Middleton only had a rental value of £30 - 0 - 0 and the Marble Works at Ashford of £40 - 0 - 0!

It obviously took some time for the initial arrangements to be settled, as Mr. Howarth was stated to be £123 - 16 - ½ in arrears at the Quarter Day in 1852.

The rent appears to have been paid regularly until 1858, when the property was said to be unoccupied at Michaelmas. In the following year's accounts Mr. Howarth appears to have paid half the previous year's rent with £52, and the property now being let first to "Brigg's widow" and then Alfred Morewood.

4. By 1896 the property was again unoccupied, and was advertised for lease by the Chatsworth Steward or Agent, Gilson Martin.

At first a seven and a half year lease was offered, and subsequently a 14 or 21 year period was offered. This was to be a full repairing lease at £60 - 0 - 0 rental per annum. Detailed requirements for repainting and repairs, including boundary fences, were stated. There was a specific requirement to "manage the lands and gardens in a good and husbandlike manner"! The fishing rights to the River Wye within the curtilage were, however, to be strictly reserved for the Duke!

The particulars of the tenancy were quite explicit, and the following were the Particulars of the Rooms:

Dining Room 22' 6" x 15' 6" Drawing Room 24' x 16' 9" Breakfast Room 12' 9" x 13' 5" Kitchen 15' 6" x 12' 9" Scullery 10' 6" x 9' 3" Butler's Pantry, Front Entrance Hall, Larder, Front and back staircases and Cellarage.

Bedrooms 15' x 15' 3", 15' x 11", 13' x 13' and 14' x 17' 6" 2 Dressing Rooms 11' 9" x 7' 8" and 9' 9" x 13' Servants' Bedrooms 18' 6" x 12' 9" Lavatory, Box Room and Bathroom.

Adjoining the house is a meat larder, storeplace, coal house, servants' w.c. and coke and bottle store.

(This is believed to be the description of the building which it is now proposed to reconstruct.)

Harness Room with Store Room adjoining, Gardener's Tool House, 2 pig cotes, fowl house and woodshed.

Adjacent Coachman's Cottage:

Living Room Scullery and Pantry Two Bedrooms.

5. The Chatsworth Estate Account Books for 1820 to 1838 have been studied. These were the years prior to and during Mrs. Warwick's occupation, until her departure in 1838, when the property was let to Revd. W. Giles as described subsequently.

The Accounts for 1820 show arrears arising from a John Bullock in Ashford of £13 - 11 - 8. Was this the same Mr. Bullock whose Executors sold the Rookery to the Duke of Devonshire?

The Account Books for 1821 - 1824 (?) show very great expenditure on the Rookery, and even greater expenditure on the grounds.

In 1821 a pond was infilled, and other considerable and frequent works to 'labour in garden', 'cleaning', 'planting shrubbery and forming walks', 'carriage of trees' and the like were carried out at an approximate total cost of £105.

As might be expected, no accounts were paid over the Winter, with further works being paid for from March 1822. Major items were "making walls, planting the Shrubbery and sundry at £39 - 11 - 10", "carting rubbish into the pond at £10 - 3 - 6", and "Chatsworth Farm Plants at £80 - 6 - 0"!

Improvements to the house are described in detail in the 1822 accounts. There were also considerable ongoing works to the grounds, such as the "Taking down Peacock Houses in the Pleasure Grounds at £5 - 8 - 0", "levelling the Rookery Garden at £43 - 2 - 0" and "carting around remaining soil at the Rookery Gardens at £79 - 12 - 0". Fencework alone cost £53 - 2 - 0.

On and on went the expenses, to approximately £350 for the annual accounting period.

Works to the House were not neglected. There are regular payments to the same identified tradesmen for mason's work, the carriage of lime and stone, painter's and glazier's work, carpentry work, sundry deal furniture and (timber) repairs, recasting and fixing the leaden gutters, blacksmith's work, slater's work and whitewashing and colouring! The expenditure was approximately £420. The chimneys are understood to have been rebuilt and raised during this year, and the Grotto was reportedly constructed this year. On went similar works in 1823 to a cost of approximately £215. By now, the gardens must have been in order for Thomas Wilson, Gardener, was paid £7 - 16 - 0 every 13 weeks/quarter. Flower seeds at 7s 3d were included in the buildings costs, however!

By 1824 finishing works were strongly in hand, and generally reduced expenditure, including items at £3 - 10 - 0 for cartridge paper rolls for the Dressing Room, and £17 - 12 - 7 for painter's work.

6. The expenditure continued though it by now seemed that finishing works were being carried out. The same tradesmen were employed for carpentry, masonry, painters work, ironwork and plumbing and glazier works but, additionally, cartridge paper for (lining) the walls of the Dining Room was purchased for £3/10/-, as well as £4/12/4 being expended on drab cloth and drugget for lining both in 1824. The whole expenditure for the year was £171/11/7.

Interestingly, this is the year for the first entry in the accounts for the lady Benedictus Parker who remains in them until they end in 1849 as separate for the Rookery. In this year she was paid for 60 weeks @ 2/6 for the keep of the Italian greyhound "Ondine"!

07. The annual expenditure declined, with £92/4/4 in 1826 (the accounts for 1825 are missing), £86/11/7 in 1827, £117/3/- in 1828 (reputedly the first year of Mrs. Warwick's residence), and £81/8/- in 1829.

08. The accounts show ongoing costs for "labour in the garden" of £40 to £50. Regular "carriage of gravel" presumably showed the topping up of the extensive paths within the grounds. Coal and soap/candles start to be regular, relatively large, annual expenditures at around £20 for the former and £10 for the latter.

09. Joseph Paxton was paid £11/4/- in 1827 for the use of a labourer from the Chatsworth Garden for 16 weeks (@ 14/- per week). £6/1/6 was paid in 1828 for Scotch roses, as well as the continuing hire of a labourer from the Chatsworth Garden.

10. The menagerie maintained by Benedictus Parker varies from year to year, with entries for a dog and two cats, then cats, and in 1831 one George Wilson was paid £2/4/- for "stuffing a Persian cat"!

11. Some of the unusual entries include Richard Sellors in 1828 for repairing the roof of an outbuilding and reslating the Waterkeeper's House for about £13, and the cost of coal from Staveley in 1832 @ £8/10/- with associated cartage costs of £10/11/3; £10/9/9 paid to Bramah and Prestage for a water closet apparatus in 1839; and over £20 being paid to a surgeon and medical supplier for "surgical attendance upon the Housekeeper" in 1834.

12. Finishing or renewal and upgrading works can be seen to have been regularly carried out, with a slowly changing cast of tradesmen, most of whom also appear in the Chatsworth accounts for other labours elsewhere. There are few furnishing costs, (six chairs in 1834), and some fabric items (chimney pipes in 1838, reportedly when the chimneys were raised), and an oven boiler in 1839.

13. In 1837 there is again major expenditure with a total cost of £388/3/7½. This must be the cost of the extension to the rear of the East end of the house. There are entries for the same tradesmen with considerably greater earnings, and in addition for "earthing and foundations at the back of the house".

These continued into the next year when Mrs. Warwick and the Duke, reportedly, finally parted. The property was let to Revd. W.G. Giles, who was the Curate at Ashford Church, which was a living in the Duke of Devonshire's patronage. The charity accounts show an annual gratuity payment of £3/-/- to the Revd. Giles. The Estate also pay him £1 per week to maintain the garden. From the Estate rentals it seems that the annual rent for the Rookery was £104, so the garden payment may well have been a charitable act. The Revd. Giles nevertheless left in 1851 with £61 rent arrears.

The annual Estate expenditure during the early years of his tenancy averaged around £98, so there was precious little profit from the rent as charged, notwithstanding the Revd. Giles's arrears. Amongst the entries of interest for those years concerning alterations to the fabric were the opening of a sough in 1840, £11/18/9 in 1845 for a "floor a sefament (?)", about £20 in 1846 for repairs to the bridge over the River Wye, and in 1847 for "removing earth at the back of the Dairy", together with substantial masons' accounts from the same year. Was this the original construction of the building which it is now proposed to reconstruct?

14. As stated previously, the 1848 accounts are missing and from 1849 the Estate Accounts are set out differently, with no specific reference to the expenditure at the Rookery.

15. The full record of tenants of the property after this period is known:

Revd. W.G. Giles: 1838 - 1851 Edmund Hayworth: 1852 - 1867 Alfred Sarsby: 1866 Succeeded by Agnes Sorby: 1866 - 1896 John T. Dickenson: 1896 - 1898 Frederick Lear: 1899 - 1910 Walter C. Tinsley: 1910 - 1930 Succeeded by Alice Tinsley: 1930 -1942 Lord Andrew Cavendish: 1943 - 1946 Col. H. Dacres West: 1946 - 1956

16. The Chatsworth Estate Archives obviously hold other documents relating to the property. Between 1900 and 1903 there appears to have been a problem with the water supply and broken pipes to troughs with neighbours with such rights, and also the taking of the water supply from the Rookery to the Coach House for the washing of carriages.

Tenders for alterations to the Rookery were reported to the Estate Steward, Mr. Gilson, in 1908 by John Ely F.R.I.B.A., Architect of Manchester, in the sums of £471 - 0 - 0 and £527 - 10 - 0. The scope of these works is shown on the drawing on the next page. It is believed that the works were never carried out, but the floor plan at that date is most helpfully shown. It shows the Butler's Pantry still located in what we now know as the Hall. 17. Amongst the Chatsworth archive is a drawing (included here) described as "Plan for extensions to the Rookery, Ashford c. 1920".

The drawing is unfortunately undated and unsigned. It is believed to have been found relatively recently in a cache of papers in an outbuilding roof void/attic, and the "c. 1920" attribution is certainly open to challenge.

Comparison with the known 1908 plan on page 28 showing proposed alterations to the Rookery is interesting. The 1908 plan clearly shows the Scullery Western extension to the side of the Kitchen.

That is not shown on the "as existing" colour rendering of the other plan. Were the "below stairs" arrangements within the original fabric of the house implemented? The Wine Cellar of 1908 is marked as the Lady's Store and for China, and the Butler's Pantry is located in what is the Larder, and was so in 1908.

The proposals show the construction of a large Billiard Room attached to the North West of the house, with the principal access through the Morning Room. Attached to the Billiard Room was to be a service range to the North of the house with an enclosed courtyard. Interestingly, there is a pencil annotation on the drawing showing a door to give access to that courtyard!

This range is shown where much of the rear terrace, as now exists, is located. It bears no relationship, however, to the Scullery extension as was, or the passage from the Coach House/Barn running around and the North side of the extended service range of the house.

So, is it possible to assume that the drawing is in fact earlier than the 1920's attribution? Does it predate the Scullery extension of the Kitchen/Servants' Hall which the Royal Commission report suggests was added in the mid nineteenth century? There is, however, no evidence of that in the drawings attributed to the 1920's! 18. In recent years, the property has been regularly updated and modernised as comfort standards have changed.

These works include the following alterations:

1. As stated previously, in the 1970s the rear roof slope of the main range was altered and reroofed with blue grey slates rather than the presumed previous sandstone slates. Consent for this work was reportedly obtained with some difficulty.

2. The present owners have converted the Barn to a domestic office and study accommodation; Upgraded the Kitchen and extended it to create a rear porch; Created a new bedroom by conversion from an existing bathroom, and carried out alterations to another bedroom. Critical Evaluation of Previous Records

The published sources of information about the building are relatively few, and so far as can be ascertained, are accurate. It might be possible to challenge with some of the observations of the RCHM conjectural, but not to fundamentally disagree with them.

The primary research reported sets out extracts from historic documents. Their veracity cannot really be doubted. Many of the Chatsworth Estate Accounts and Records are signed by the eminent Joseph Paxton, (1803 - 65) from his service as Estate Steward, though most histories only record that he was Head Gardener. That cannot have been the case if he was signing his approval of Rental Books for the Estate.

The regression of the numerous maps showing the property after the mid eighteenth century until the belated arrival of the Ordnance Survey to this part of Derbyshire in 1878, are mostly quite clear and consistent in showing the house and its grounds, and their development, followed by their retrenchment.

The former outbuilding that it is now proposed to reconstruct really did exist! 8.00 BUILDING FORM

8.01 Survey Drawings:

Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.: Drawings

RKR 2SU 001D Ground Floor Plan As existing RKR 2SU 002E First Floor Plan As existing RKR 2SU 003D Roof Plan As existing RKR 2SU 101C Elevations 1 and 2 As existing RKR 2SU 102C Elevations 3 and 4 As existing RKR 2SU 103C Elevation 5 As existing RKR 2SU 104D Sections AA and BB As existing RKR LO003C Historic maps RKR LO002B Location Plan

8.02 Structure:

The structure of the buildings is entirely typical for this part of Derbyshire, having presumed shallow foundations to solid stone faced loadbearing walls, supporting first floor timber floor joists and traditional roof trusses, purlins and rafters, under a mixture of sandstone stone slab and blue grey slates to the various roof slopes. I imagine that the roofs were originally clad with sandstone stone slates, and the various alterations have caused the change.

The Coach House is constructed of the same materials, in part over an older archaic (or reused?) timber cruck roof construction. It is, of course, to be noted that the building was originally described as a "Barn" before its conversion to the Coach House, so that may well have been an original barn cruck construction. The joints of the cruck blades are apped, and the purlins are trenched onto those blades, indicating an early provenance.

8.03 Materials:

As stated above, the materials are entirely typical for the vernacular of this part of the Peak District in Derbyshire, with limestone wall facings and gritstone dressings to openings, quoins and the like. The blue/grey roof slates are presumably a modern replacement arising from the remodelling of the main body of the house in the twentieth century. This is not a locally sourced material, but was readily used in the locality with the growth of their distribution by the expansion of the railways in the 1850s onwards.

Rainwater goods are cast iron, replacing the lead for such items as described in the Chatsworth Archives Building Accounts of the 1820's and 1830's.

Windows and doors are generally painted timber. As described within section 10.00 the detailed Fabric Survey, a number of what appear to be historic timber sliding sash windows have no horns at their intermediate rails, which generally denotes their manufacture before 1840. There are a number of panes of blown Crown glass to those windows which would again confirm their authenticity. Evidence is available with the photographs taken in 1992 by the representatives of the Royal Commission (Appendix A) which show presumed nineteenth century replacement windows to the principal South elevation of the main wing of the house. Internally, all materials are typical, except for the use of what I believe to be Hopton Wood limestone to the Hall floor, and to the principal staircase to the Master Bedroom on the first floor. I have never seen this material used for this purpose. It is interesting that the Royal Commission do not state this, but that the material is "fossiliferous marble flags, probably of locally quarried Ashford marble. I believe it to be Hopton Wood from nearby Middleton-by-Wirksworth. There is the same stone at Chatsworth House, according to a reference. 1 What was described as "New Hopton Wood Stone" was acquired at Monsal Dale, until a legal judgement in 1910 protected the name of the original.

A useful guide to the Stones of Derbyshire2 confirms the Hopton Wood stone is one of the local Bee Low limestones. The South Eastern edge of the seam of these very clean calcium carbonate stones is Hopton Wood. This is described as:

"This is a consistent fine-grained, fossiliferous, crystalline, pale, cream coloured limestone, perhaps the UK's most widely used decorative indigenous limestone. From the 18C onwards it has predominantly been used in interior work (staircases, floors, door surrounds, wall cladding) in grand houses and official buildings…..It was much in vogue from 1850 to 1950 and still is, although it is still available in small quantities, but much in demand."

Those descriptions and criteria precisely match the use of the stone at the Rookery.

The door to the Drawing Room is of historic interest, though I believe it has been reworked.

The extant historic fire surround in the principal bedroom of the West range is a thing of considerable beauty and historic interest.

Most other finishes are modern, albeit presumably overlying the historic materials beneath! The 1992 Royal Commission photographs interestingly in part record the furniture, fittings and decoration of a previous owner of the house.

______________________________________________________________________

1 British Geological Survey: "Bright Stone: Hopton Wood". Unable to find any copy. 2 English Heritage: "Strategic Stone Study: A Building Stone Atlas of Derbyshire and the Peak National Park", Swindon (?) (2011). 9.00 DETAILS OF CHANGE PROPOSED

9.01 The principal development now proposed is the reconstruction of the former outbuilding located to the North of the principal body of the house, against the bank up to the Buxton Road.

This is most clearly shown on the submitted drawings.

This photograph taken in the 1970's shows the former outbuilding prior to its being taken down around that time, presumably in conjunction with the known contemporary alterations to the rear of the main body of the house.

The alterations to the rear roof slope of the main range of the house do not seem to have been carried out by this time. The outbuilding is also clearly shown on this photograph, also believed to have been taken in the 1970's. 9.02 That building was taken down in part and then resurfaced with pavings to create an external series of terraces.

Photographs of terrace as existing. Photographs of terrace as existing.

9.03 The reconstruction will provide for ancillary accommodation to the dwelling.

The principal accommodation of the reconstructed building will comprise a Laundry Room which is a requirement for a family with growing children, and containing plant, and a Wine Cellar. Stairs will lead up to a mezzanine floor level above, on which a Dayroom will be created with views Westwards across the grounds of the house.

A part of the existing terrace will be lowered by just one step, so that access can be easily made onto it from the new Dayroom. A flowerbed retaining wall will be taken down and rebuilt to achieve this, and the modern access steps up to the Terrace from the back door of the house will need to be altered. The existing large terrace to the Western side will be retained all as existing but the present poor quality concrete flaggs will be replaced with natural stone paving.

9.04 Investigation by the digging of test pits under the direction of the Consultant Structural Engineer has been carried out, and the walls of the reconstruction will be raised over new foundations, within the line of the historic walls, so that the new walls in no way affect the retaining wall back into the bank to the rear of the existing boundary wall along Buxton Road.

The Consultant Structural Engineer has advised that the existing reduced wall and its unknown foundation cannot be accepted as a suitable founding for the new rear wall of the proposed restitution of the former outbuilding. The historic wall will remain. It will continue to contribute whatever structural foundation that it does, and a new concrete block wall of two leaves reinforced with structural steel mesh in the cavity/joint between the leaves will be connected to steel reinforcement in the new concrete floor slab.

Investigation to date on the surface of that bank shows a plethora of damaged and dumped stonework and mass concrete, presumably as a foundation/reinforcement of the high stone boundary wall to the public highway.

9.05 The walls as raised will be faced externally in coursed limestone all to match the existing retaining wall as exposed, and also the main body of the house.

The roof will be equally pitched, clad with blue grey natural slates, and panels of photovoltaic collectors on the South slope, which is concealed from all public views. The roof will have clay ridge caps to the ridge. That ridge will be located at a lower level than the ridge of the gable wall of the existing Kitchen offshot.

9.06 The new structural openings will have sawn gritstone dressings, lintels and cills, and all doors and windows will be of painted timber. 9.07 The existing **Dining Area** within the Kitchen space within the **main body of the house** is too small for the convenience of a large modern family. It is simple in form, with slated pitched roofs over stone loadbearing walls, and it is desired to extend it in the same form and materials for approximately 1.5 metres in length, all as shown on the submitted drawings. Photographs of existing. 10.00 DETAILED FABRIC SURVEY

10.01 I have carried out a detailed inspection of the buildings, both externally and internally. The purpose is to amplify the documentary sources of information as to the development of the complex of buildings, and to identify those aspects of the built fabric which have historic significance, and whether they are to be affected by the proposed changes.

I base my assessments of the impact of the current proposals for change on the following drawings prepared by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.:

RKR2/GA/001D RKR2/GA/002D RKR2/GA/003D RKR2/GA/101D RKR2/GA/102D RKR2/GA/103C RKR2/GA/104C

I set out after my description of each building element or space my assessment of the impact of the changes proposed on that significance.

10.02 The building has grown and been remodelled through time. The present owners have carried out extensive works of upgrading and modernisation to the Rookery itself, to the adjacent barn and to Rookery Cottage since 2006. They have reacquired the latter building, so that it now forms part of the overall land holding.

10.03 The Rookery can be summarised by the listing description as set out at 3.03. Bald description offers little of the actual charm of the building itself! (Photographs 1 - 6).

10.04 Generally:

From visual inspection, and certainly from documentary evidence, the house has obviously been significantly altered through the years, as described previously in the historical development section of this report.

Generally the house is built of random limestone brought to course under sandstone slab roofs. As stated previously, the rear roof slopes of the main range have been re-clad in blue/grey slates.

10.05 External inspection:

I will report on each section of the house, making my observations as to those elements of fabric which contribute in some way to the heritage significance of the whole.

1. Main Wing: The South elevation is unbalanced. This is principally caused by the two canopied doorways, the central one of which has been infilled. I presume that was the original when the house probably comprised that central bay plus two single-light bays to each side, as so considered by the R.C.H.M. report of 1992. That to the East side has now been changed to have a three-light window with stone mullions. (Photograph 7). The Royal Commission report states that this wall was rebuilt. I cannot see any physical evidence for this, and can only presume that they have some documentary evidence for that assertion.

It is also asserted that the two very similar canopied door openings are contemporaneous and form part of the Duke's remodellings of the 1820's. It is suggested that the two openings were used separately for different status visitors. I cannot believe that. I believe that the right hand (Eastern) door is the original, which became redundant with the remodelling of the interior of the original range, I agree with their conjecture as to the internal evidence of the location of the original entrance lobby, which accords perfectly with that now infilled door opening.

The diminishing stone slab roof above is surmounted by what must have been originally a central passage chimney and also a gable chimney to the East end of the house. These have been raised in worked limestone ashlar over a plinth course on rubblestone base. They are surmounted by distinctive clay pots. The matching pots on an adjacent house, which is known to have been designed by Joseph Paxton, suggest that he had a hand in their being placed on this building as well. (Photograph 8).

The walls are of irregular rubble limestone brought generally to course with rather protruding mortar pointing. The windows and door dressings are gritstone as is typical with this vernacular. Interestingly, there is no plinth as there often is with buildings of this type.

The First Floor windows, and that to the Ground Floor immediately adjacent to the modern entrance door, have no horns to the sliding sashes. The three sashes in the three-light window to the Ground Floor at the East end have horns. The photographs taken in 1992 by the Royal Commission show that these ground floor windows were at that time presumed replacement nineteenth century single light sashes. I understand that the present owners have caused those windows to be replaced with small paned sliding sashes to match those at first floor level.

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. NO ALTERATIONS PROPOSED.

2. The East elevation has a blank gable to the original body of the house. (Photograph 3). There is an area of unmatched patch pointing near the abutment to the rear offshot wing in what appears to be the butt joint between this gable and that extension. (Photographs 9 and 10).

3. Rear Offshot Wing: That has apparently been constructed in two phases. The first constructed is faced with a mix of rubble limestone plus one or two gritstones plus evidence of what were fairly ornamental gritstone quoins at high level. (Photograph 9). Below that is an area of unmatched split limestone set in mortar pointing. I wonder if there was some former door or other such opening there? There is no evidence of that internally. Certainly the levels do not work. The Royal Commission suggest that this range was formerly of one and a half storeys, later raised to two with a subsequent remodelling. That would explain these levels.

There is a timber sliding sash window without horns at First Floor level, set into typical squared gritstone surrounds. Interestingly, the jambs to each side have small blocks at their heads. This suggests the stones may have been reused and "lengthened" to suit the desired new window opening. There is evidence of former security bars having been removed in the lintel.

The Ground Floor window again may have been reused. The splayed jambs and cill are certainly more eroded. These again may have been reused. (Photograph 11).

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.

4. A further extension of that offshot wing is constructed in much higher status gritstone facing work materials with squared and coursed blocks. The present strap pointing is unfortunate and the current owners intend to remove it, and replace it with more appropriate flush lime mortar pointing.

Interestingly, the three window openings have stone heads and sills and the paired window has a central mullion but otherwise they have no jamb dressings. None of the three timber sliding sash windows has horns.

The face of the stonework has been punched, which again indicates higher status. There has been some erosion at lower level. Interesting survivals of the past are the stable bell (photograph 12) and the pump, presumably to serve that stable. (Photograph 10).

The **North** return of that extension is constructed in the same materials with a delightfully detailed tiny window at low level! (Photograph 13).

The **West** facing wall again clearly shows the two periods of building with rubble limestone to the South side being jointed to the squared coursed limestone. Interestingly, there is a pink tinged limestone set of dressings around an unhorned sash window, rather than the usual buff/yellow.

**HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.**

5. A **further extension** to the West of that has been constructed in the recent past as shown on the 1898 Ordnance Survey map. (Photograph 4). The flat lead roof and lantern light are part of recent remodelling works, and the rubble limestone with gritstone quoining and window dressings of the offshot are historic. It is now proposed that the walling be taken down and rebuilt to allow for the lengthening of that space.

**HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.**

6. The **rear North elevation** of the **main wing** now comprises a Ground Floor walling of rubble limestone with small plinth and window to the wine store internally, under a short length of slated pitched roof and then a long blue-grey slated roof up to the ridge. I understand this roof form was altered in the mid 1970's.

**HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.**

7. **West Cross Wing**: The cross wing is attached to the central body of the house and it is believed to have been constructed by the Duke of Devonshire when he acquired the house in 1821 to give it higher status. The construction certainly reflects that.

The wing is set out in advance of the main body of the house. The principal **South elevation** (photograph 14) has a canted bay with Venetian central light to the First Floor bedroom. Generally the walls are of coursed limestone with gritstone dressings. There are two band courses. Quoining is with coursed limestone but the blocks are not particularly squared.

A First Floor sash window is no longer operative and has no horns. Most of the three Ground Floor sides of the bay have horns. There is a coped pediment over the small hipped slated roof to the bay. Interestingly, that does not reflect the roof slope behind. (Photograph 15). I do not think this shows any history of previous change, it was merely set out this way for the aesthetic of the slope of the pediment.

The **West** wall is of somewhat lower grade coursed limestone. (Photograph 2). There are two windows to Ground Floor, timber sliding sashes without horns matched with shallower windows above to the First Floor. There is a projecting eaves course of stone at the head of the wall, unlike the opposite elevation, where there is none. From this elevation the stone slate roof can clearly be seen with similar raised ashlar chimneys, and the same distinctive chimney pots referred to previously.

One chimney is located over the eaves towards the South-West corner and there has been some soot staining of the limestone, presumably from leaks through the feathers and pointing of the flues.

At the base of the wall there is a strange feature, being some type of plinth. (Photograph 16). It does not, however, extend to the full length of the wall, but just a short central section. At first I wondered if it was a part of the foundations/sub base of the internal fireplace and chimney. I cannot, however, understand what.

The principal feature of the rear North wall is a six-light window illuminating the staircase from the Ground Floor hall to the First Floor bedrooms. This construction is in somewhat archaic style mouldings. The Royal Commission report also suggests that some of the mullions and transoms of this window were reused components. Some of these have regrettably been rather badly repaired with cement mortar but the original design and construction can be clearly seen. The wall otherwise is constructed of coursed limestone. (Photograph 17).

At the Ground Floor level the shadows of former attached outbuildings can clearly be seen together with vent holes. This elevation regrettably has become something of a services run support.

There is a short length of return over the roof that abuts that of the main wing on the East side. This construction is of much lower status rubble limestone, occasionally brought to course. There is a rather complex meeting of roofs and leadwork. (Photograph 18).

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.

10.06 INTERNALLY:

In the following section of the report I report on the features of individual spaces/rooms within the dwelling which I think contribute to the heritage significance of the house, or offer evidence as to the date of its provenance or previous alteration.

I use the room names denoted on Lisa Shell Architects Ltd.’s drawings Ground Floor Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/001/D and First Floor Plan As Existing: RKR2/SU/002/E.

In view of the very limited areas where it might be considered that the proposed changes described at section 8.00 will impact, there are only assessments of the Heritage Significance and Impact of the Proposals set out for those spaces.

1. Hall:

The pattern of ceiling beams shown on the drawing indicates this as being an area of change as might be expected. If the principal original entrance was in the opening which now forms part of the Family Room, which presumably had some type of entrance chamber, then the room may have extended as far West as the principal beam running North/South into which a number of historic mortices can be seen. (Photographs 19 and 20). This beam has chamfered stop-ends to round rolled mould East/West onto the solid wall partition between this space and the Family Room. The Royal Commission report correctly notes the moulding is stopped at one end and not the other, suggesting this indicates that it was reused in this position.

There are two trimmed-out areas of ceiling joists. One is by the former entrance way partition and the other adjacent to the beam. I wonder if they reflect the location of an historic stairwell? Prior to the construction of the West wind of the house there must have been a principal staircase connecting the original two storeys.

Generally, plasterwork to walls to openings is rounded rather than squared. There is a moulded timber dado rail which I would date to around 1840. There are simple skirtings with a top roll moulding. The window shutters remain with their ironmongery including the restraint bar. (Photograph 21). There is a limestone fireplace with fire grate which could be 18th or 21st century! I understand it is to be the latter! (Photograph 22). One of the photographs taken by the Royal Commission in 1992 shows the fireplace and the backing wall which at that time had the backing stonework exposed and pointed up. The stonework can clearly be seen to have never been intended for display! A larger fireplace opening under a flat brick arch has been infilled and the present stone dressings to the smaller fireplace.

The glory of the room is what I believe to be a Hopton Wood limestone slabbled floor. I have never seen a floor of this material before but know that it was used for that in high status buildings. Its veining has proved too soft for long standing use and consequent wear, but the floor is still entirely serviceable.

Interestingly, there are three squared recesses formed in it. They do not line up. The Royal Commission report suggests that these mortices indicate previous partition fixings for the partition walls and the Butler's Pantry which was located in this space, as can be seen on the reproduced drawing of 1897. (Photograph 22). (Page ?).

2. Drawing Room: This indeed is the principal reception room of the house and is thoroughly delightful. (Photographs 24 and 25). There is a flat plastered ceiling which is perhaps somewhat surprising. There is perhaps some plaster scarring around the central chandelier which may indicate that there was formerly a plaster ceiling rose there? There is a heavy cornice and high level moulded string course.

There are timber stall risers to the windows in the bay, which conceal shutters which rise to infill the openings.

Stylistically, the fireplace could again be 18th or 20th century! The Royal Commission report presumably from documentary sources, stated at that time there was a 1950's replacement fireplace. That was in turn replaced with the present in 2005 by the current owners.

The shutters to the flank elevation window remain.

The floor planks are generally exposed and painted and can be seen to be of some width. There are deep skirtings with a top roll moulding.

The door has decorative panels. I suspect those have been fitted at some recent time. The six-panel door itself is of some antiquity. (Photograph 26). The historic ironmongery is in the main retained and serviceable.

3. The Study to the North side of the house is approached through the bottom of the stairwell which will have been constructed in the extension of 1821 or thereabouts. On the 1897 plan it is shown, generally as existing now, and is marked as the Morning Room, though interestingly it is orientated such that it will receive no morning sunlight! The plaster cornice remains to the ceiling and the fireplace, but otherwise all other fixtures and fittings appear to be modern.

There are substantial built-in cupboards under the stairs and into the wall, as shown on the plan. The room itself has effectively been refitted as a modern working office.

4. The **Family Room** will I believe have been the principal room formed in one of the earliest plan forms of the original dwelling in the original body of the house.

There is one historic but undecorated **ceiling** beam spanning North to South, to presumably form the opening of the hall to the original entrance doorway. (Photograph 27).

The long timber beam spanning from that to the East gable wall can be seen to have been formerly plastered as have the now exposed ceiling joints with nail fixings for the laths around them to the ceiling. (Photograph 28).

There is a historic long timber lintel over the three-light window. (Photograph 29).

There is no decorative plasterwork. The skirtings appear to be modern. There is a timber stall riser to the long three-light window. There are timber shutters rising from a recess in the wall to infill the window openings. (Photograph 30).

The fireplace now has a wood-burning stove located in what I think must have been a rebuilt opening. Stylistically, it matches that in the Hall adjacent, and so could either be archaic, or alternatively, of twentieth century provenance! Both are located in what I believe to the oldest rooms in the house, so their matching could offer the clue that they are archaic. They are, however, in disturbingly good condition…..!

The floor is carpeted but feels to be timber construction underneath.

The timber door has one glazed panel and appears to have been re-panelled generally around an original muntin.

5. The **Inner Hall** is approached via a short length of corridor from the Reception and Family Room. It too has a floor of a mixture of Hopton Wood and gritstone stone paving. There is an arched opening to the Wine Cellar. Also, ingeniously, a W.C. has been formed in what originally was the location of the rear service staircase, as seen on the 1908 plan

Happily, the servants' bells mechanism remains. (Photograph 32).

6. The **Wine Cellar** is located in one of two chambers. Shelving is formed, as is often found, with stone slabs, which are undoubtedly historic and formed part-larder and part-food store. It is located in an extension to the rear of the original main body of the dwelling, with a small ventilating window.

There are four steps down to its floor level, which both gave more headroom to the rooms above and made for cooler storage conditions. The ceiling of that outer chamber could be formed by plaster applied directly to the underside of stone roofing slates. However, there is hearsay that these service spaces were vaulted, possibly for security, which appears to be the case from the internal form of the space. Otherwise the old stone slates that historically formed the ceiling of the space, may have simply been left in situ when the roof was remodelled, and reclad, in the 1970's.

The former external walls to the house are now enclosed.

The only other item of historic interest besides the vaulted forms of the ceiling is the historic ironmongery (photograph 31) where it is sadly redundant to the proper security of the door. Unfortunately the main volume of the cellar has been partitioned to accommodate a hot water cylinder but will be recovered to its earlier form in the resiting of the equipment into the reconstructed outbuilding.

7. The **Laundry** door is of interesting planked braced timber construction with old ironmongery. (Photographs 33 and 34).

8. The **Kitchen** range opening remains in modern use. (Photograph 35). It is the historic previous extension to this which it is proposed now be further extended.

**HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: MEDIUM/LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH.**

9. The principal access to the First Floor is via the **stairway** built into the extension at West end abutment to the original dwelling. Its elegance can hopefully be seen in photographs 36 and 37.

The treads and risers are again clad with what I believe is Hopton Wood marble, which I again have never seen before. There is a pine moulded handrail affixed to a newel post. I suspect the balusters between replace some more historic types though the locations appear to be the same (photographs 38 to 40) even where metal reinforcements have been built into the tread. Might there have been an elegant metal rail originally?

The string to the wall has a simple roll moulding to its top and there is a moulded dado rail.

10. At First Floor level the junction of the floor levels from the new "gentry" wing and the original body of the house has led to a rather awkward stair down to that former accommodation. (Photograph 41). This reflects the greater ceiling heights in the higher status West cross wing.

What I presume was changed to plan form originally with two bedrooms and a dressing room has been converted so that the Master bedroom remains at the South end of this wing, there is a Dressing room to the centre, and a large Bathroom to the rear (North) end.

11. The **Master Bedroom** is a delightful space with coved ceilings leading to a flat central area. (Photograph 42).

There is a heavy projecting plaster moulded cornice. (Photograph 43).

The windows, along with an opening sash, have had two panes altered to allow their "screw" opening for reduced ventilation provision. (Photograph 44). There is still Crown glass glazing to these windows.

There is a delightful 18th century fireplace with the fire surround with black Ashford marble and Blue John crystal inlay. (Photographs 45 and 46).

The **Dressing Room** has been fitted out to modern standards. There is trap access into the roof void above.

In that **roof void** the modern insulation is very disturbed, presumably by services installations/alterations and that needs to be re-laid and smoothed down to be effective.

There appear to be three King post trusses of some antiquity.

The first matter of surprise is that there is an underlay of relatively modern bituminous sarking roof felt. This means that it must have been re-roofed at some time up to the 1960s.

There is a mixture inside that of historic adzed timbers and sawn replacements. Some fillets have been provided, presumably to level up the bow which had developed in the rafters. Some rafters are set on their side, with others in the more correct "upright" position. Purlins appear to be trenched. There are lots of pegs and morticing. (Photographs 47 to 50).

This room is connected to a Bathroom adjacent, which again has two covings to the ceiling, and is fitted out to modern standards. The principal surviving heritage artefact is a delightful 18th century fireplace with Hopton Wood marble surround. (Photograph 51).

12. The original core East-West range of the house was presumably only the depth of the bedrooms and bathrooms along the South elevation with an access corridor on the North side. (Photograph 52). There is a stone arch over the opening to the stairs onto the access corridor.

The lean-to ceiling along the corridor has exposed presumed historic rafters. There are significant storage spaces between sections of solid wall along the North side of that corridor, except for that which is breached with the observation light down into the Kitchen access corridor. (Photograph 53). The 1857 plan reproduced previously shows this to be the site of the secondary staircase.

13. The former Dressing Room is now a delightful modern fitted child’s Bedroom and is delightfully tidy!

14. The adjacent Bedroom is open to the underside of the roof and has an exposed king post truss, purlins and rafters. The truss shows mortices from previous pegs. The purlins show mortices, presumably for partition muntins. The purlins are part trenched onto the principal rafter of the exposed truss. (Photograph 54).

There is a Hopton Wood marble fire surround and limestone fire grate.

The en-suite Bathroom has been fitted out to modern standards with new surface finishes. The floor is raised, presumably to accommodate drainage connections? (Photograph 55).

15. The adjacent Bedroom is again fitted out to modern standards and a historic retained fireplace and surround not matching any of the others in the house. There is an access to the roof void above.

From that roof void there is access into the roof void of the North offshot wing over the Kitchen (Photographs 56 - 58). There is quite a lot of evidence of beetle attack on the timbers, particularly the purlins. Some modern purlins replaced the originals, presumably when the roof was raised for the altered rear roof pitch. There is modern sarking felt to this roof as well. The roof has a mixture of adzed (historic) rafters and modern sawn replacements or additions. There are a large number of struts and props, supporting the main structural timber members.

16. At the East end of the corridor there is access into the return offshot Eastern wing (over the Kitchen) which is at a raised floor level. There is a small Bathroom again fitted out to the highest modern standards with no historic fabric remaining exposed. There is a small access trap in the landing outside the space, into which I was unable to gain access.
17. The remainder of the accommodation at this floor level of the offshot wing is a further Bedroom fitted out to modern high standards of finish. There is an access trap to the roof void above which is inaccessible because of the room's furniture. There is an original stone fireplace, surround and cast iron grate.

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.

BARN

10.08 Exterior:

1. This is located to the East side of the main house. I presume that it was originally used as stabling and as a Coach House, as that would seem to be the purpose of the nicely detailed doorway to the West gable. (Photograph 101).

That West elevation is certainly the most interestingly detailed, with regular large gritstone quoins, gritstone surrounds and a flat arch over the presumed Coach opening, with a fixed 16-light window set within stone dressings in the gable above. There is a ridge chimney above, again constructed of gritstone. The verge details show evidence of change, and mortar infilling of different depths of joint.

There is an external gritstone flagg forecourt to the entrance doors.

The South elevation (photograph 102) again shows the remodelling of the building to give it its "polite" West front, with a very apparent butt joint between that construction and the more random vernacular construction of the remainder of the elevation. (Photograph 103). The stone voussoir arch is, I presume, a modern intervention, as it is certainly not a vernacular detail in this locality. The other two windows have more typical gritstone squared dressings.

A modern garage has been infilled between the South wall of that building and a substantial wall between this area and the garden to the river frontage below. (Photograph 102) I presume this to be a modern intervention. It abuts the gable wall of the Rookery Cottage adjacent.

The North elevation also shows evidence of past change. (Photograph 104). The "polite" return to the West gable is very much shorter. There has obviously been a history of movement of that part of the wall, with this section of the building moving away from the remainder, and being repaired. There appears to be an infilled door or window adjacent.

The stonework is of a very much lower status, being random rubble brought to course with completely different face work. There are some interesting stones incorporating sections of what I presume is Ashford black marble as commercially quarried from the quarry nearby as described previously. (Photographs 105 and 106).

There are modern windows set within historic openings generally with gritstone surrounds. There is a further butt joint towards the East end of the wall indicating a different build period for this section.

The East gable is of random un-coursed limestone with gritstone quoins. (Photograph 107). It appears to have been repointed in modern times.

The roof is of blue/grey slates to the rear (North) slope, and a plethora of plastic vents located near the eaves and near the ridge, so it has obviously been re-roofed in modern times in accordance with the ventilation of roof provisions of the current Building Regulations! On the South side the roof is clad with sandstone slates to match the main house.

**Interior:**

2. The interior of much of this building has been substantially altered in the recent past. It could be said to now be an exemplar of the creative conservation, and the reuse of a historic building for an economic use.

The building is cruck framed with two of the frames remaining. One is exposed in a double-height space. (Photograph 108). Skilled modern design has created an upper level with timber, glass and steel. (Photograph 109).

Tradition is maintained with a stone flagged floor in the principal space. The purlins, rafters and posts of the crucks show evidence of the previous different uses of the building. The arrangement of the purlins over the cruck blades is archaic and dated to approximately 1800-50.

Historically there would seem to have been a fireplace at First Floor level, perhaps for grooms or postmen or coachman’s sleeping accommodation over the stables below? (Photograph 110).

At the East end of the building’s Ground Floor, remnants of the historic stable remain with three stalls still extant. (Photograph 14).

**HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: HIGH. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: LOW.** 10.09 THE GROUNDS

1. As can be seen from the location plan, the grounds of the property are extensive. Those to the South side of the River Wye, cutting through the property running from West to East up to the frontage along Duke’s Drive, are of no relevance to this report.

2. The bridge over the river is a delightful structure. This is all a designated heritage asset in its own right rather than merely being within the curtilage of the Rookery. (Photograph 201).

3. There are gardens laid out to the front, South side and East side of the property up to the river. These are wholly delightful and appropriate to the house. There is a formal box hedge garden and extensive lawns immediately in front of the house running down to the river. (Photographs 202 - 204).

4. As described previously, the grounds are very extensive. To the South and West end of the property is a delightful walk along the riverside through woodland. This now terminates at the back of (house) which was formerly the home of the Manager of the Marble Works and just on the other side of the road to the site of the Ashford Marble Mill.

There is a delightful riverside walk (photograph 205) including both a Grotto constructed of tufa (similar to that at Stourhead in Wiltshire) (photograph 207) and also an Ice House (photograph 206) for which part of the steps giving access down into the river to collect the ice still remain!

It is understood that the curtilage used to extend to encompass the Ashford Marble Works, now mainly demolished to allow for the construction of Duke's Drive (now being the A6 trunk road). The stone extracted was known as Black Marble.

As stated previously, the Works were founded in 1748 by Henry Watson, who was a relative of the stone carvers, White Watson of Bakewell and Samuel Watson of Chatsworth. The Works closed in 1905. Details of the position of the mine and the Chatsworth patronage are described previously. (Photographs 208 - 214).

5. The area of the grounds which would be impacted by the proposed works as described at Section 9.00 is the terracing to the North of the house, between it and the boundary wall to the back of the public highway now known as Buxton Road, and so to the rear of the dwelling.

The area was formed by the taking down of a former outbuilding to approximately half its height, infilling the void between the rear retaining and three other walls and paving over it to create the sequence of terraces now existing. (Photographs on pages 37-41)

Behind that original rear wall to the outbuilding, there is now a levelled strip of ground, which is effectively beyond the garden. (Photographs on pages 37-41). What appears to be a ruinous remnant of the former outbuilding still exists as shown on photograph 224.

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE: LOW. IMPACT OF PROPOSALS: HIGH. Ashford Marble Works

The famous Ashford Black Marble is unique to this area. These buildings were once part of the site where the marble was cut and polished. The site closed in 1905. 11.00 PUBLISHED POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

11.01 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

1. The principal document is the National Planning Policy Framework (2008) - These proposals are too micro-scaled for these policies to be relevant, beyond their general thrust that the development contribution to national economic growth is to be encouraged.

The heritage advice contained within the document is:

Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. This sets out Governmental guidance/policy.

(126) Desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation,

Desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness,

(132) Any harm or loss to Grade II building should be exceptional,

Any loss or harm should require clear and continuing justification,

(134) Where the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

2. Beyond the NPPF further guidance is published by the Government on the Planning Portal website. The Planning Practice Guidance: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment states:

(008) Decision taking: in the historic environment

What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into account?

(015) What is a viable use for a heritage asset and how is it taken into account in planning decisions?

(017) How is it possible to assess if there is substantial harm to be caused by the proposals?

(019) How can proposals avoid or minimise harm to the significance of a heritage asset?

3. The primary legislation remains the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990. That states:

"7. Subject to the following provisions of this Act no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or its alteration or extension in any manner which will affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorized.

8 (1) Works for the alteration or extension of a listed building are authorized if: (a) written consent for their execution has been granted by the local planning authority…….; and

(b) they are executed in accordance with the terms of the consent and of any conditions attached to it.

10(1) …. an application for listed building consent shall be made to and dealt with by the local planning authority.

10(2) Such an application shall be made in such form as the authority may require and shall contain -

(a) sufficient particulars to identify the building to which it relates, including a plan;

(b) such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application; and

(c) such other particulars as may be required by the authority.

16(1) ….the local planning authority …. may grant or refuse an application for listed building consent and, if they grant consent, may grant it subject to conditions.

16(2) In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority ….. shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

16(3) Any listed building consent shall …… enure for the benefit of the building and of all persons for the time being interested in it."

11.02 Further advice and guidance is available from the Government's heritage agency Historic England:

Their publication "The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3" is relevant.

1. The advice in this document, in accordance with the NPPF, emphasises that the information required in support for applications for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent should be no more than is necessary to reach an informed decision, and that activities to conserve or invest need to be proportionate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact on the significance of those heritage assets.

2. It suggests that the primary concerns are the relationship of the proposals to curtilage, character and context.

Curtilage is defined as "the legal term describing an area around a building and, with listed structures, the extent of curtilage is defined by consideration of ownership, both past and present, functional association and layout. The setting of a historic asset will include, but generally be more extensive than, its curtilage".

Character "of a historic place is the sum of all its attributes, which may include: its relationships now and through time; its visual aspects; and the features, materials and spaces associated with its listing including its original configuration and subsequent losses and changes". Context "is the term used to describe any relationship between it and other heritage assets which are relevant to its significance … and can include the relationship of one heritage asset to another of the same period or function or with the same designer or architect".

3. The extent of setting states:

"The NPPF makes it clear that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve".

4. View and setting are described:

"The contribution of setting .. is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of view of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset".

5. These lead to a description of the importance of the setting and the significance of heritage assets which are described as follows:

"Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset".

The importance of cumulative change and change over time are expressed.

Understanding the history of change will help determine how further development within the asset's setting is likely to affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset.

Many heritage assets have settings that have been designed to enhance their presence and visual interest.

6. This leads to recommendations regarding a Staged Approach to Proportionate Decision Taking, which suggests that:

"All heritage assets have significance some of which have particular significance and are designated and the contribution made by their setting to their significance also varies …. not all settings have the same capacity to accommodate change without harm to the significance of the heritage asset. This capacity may vary …

Protection of the setting of heritage assets need not prevent change; indeed change may be positive".

Amongst the Government's planning objectives for the historic environment is that conservation decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of a heritage asset's significance and are investigated to a proportionate degree.

07. The process of determining the effect of any proposed alteration to the setting of a heritage asset could be as follows:

08. Identifying the heritage assets and their settings.

09. Assessing whether, how and to what degree those settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.

10. Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset such as:

    Location and siting Form and appearance Additional effects Permanence

11. The proposals should attempt to maximise enhancement and minimise harm:

    Enhancement is described as:

    Removing or remodelling an intrinsic building or feature. Replacement of a detrimental feature by a new or more harmonious one. Restoring or revealing a lost historic feature.

11.04 Further guidance to decision makers is primarily offered by the following document from the same source:

"Historic England: Making Changes to Heritage Assets, Historic England Advice Note 2".

1. This states:

"3. A reasonable and proportionate approach to owners' needs is therefore essential.

5. (an important consideration) …. is an understanding of the significance of individual elements, derived from both the physical evidence and documentary sources.

6. Change … can normally be characterised as:

   Repair Restoration Addition and alteration, either singly or combination…"

7. Restoration is described as:

"23. Restoration may range from small scale work …. to large schemes to restore the former appearance of buildings, with the addition of major missing elements …

24. Restoration is likely to be acceptable if:

The work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the heritage asset, and is executed in accordance with that evidence. The work proposed respects previous forms of the heritage asset. No archaeological interest is lost if the restoration work could later be confused with the original fabric. The maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable.

25. Restoration works are those that are intended to reveal or recover something of significance that has been enabled, observed or previously removed.

26. Guidance for the principles of **Addition and Extension** are similarly defined:

"41. The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets … aside from NPPF requirements such as social and economic activity and sustainability are suggested as the following:

Proportion,

Height,

Massing,

Bulk,

Use of materials,

Durability and adaptability,

Use,

Enclosure,

Relationship with adjacent assets which includes:

- definition of spaces and streets,
- alignment,
- active frontages,
- permeability,
- treatment of setting".

4. It is suggested that it would not normally be good practice for new work to dominate the original asset in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset's significance or its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate.

5. At paragraph 42 it states:

"The historic fabric will always be an important part of the asset's significance…. however, the retention of as much historic fabric as possible… is likely to fulfil the NPPF policy to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, as a fundamental part of any good alterations or conversion."

6. Similarly, it suggests that the junction between new work and the existing fabric needs particular attention, both for its impact on the significance of the existing asset and the impact on the contribution of its setting.

Where possible it is preferable for new work to be reversible, so that changes can be undone without harm to historic fabric.

7. The document then sets out the various elements of a heritage asset that might be affected by any proposed intervention. The existing elements of the building to be affected by this application are described previously in Section 10.00.

11.04 The principal general advice offered by Historic England (formerly English Heritage) with regard to the sustainable management, including change, of the historic environment is set out in their document:

"Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment".

1. This describes the six principles for the conservation of the historic environment in England and Wales as being:

2. The historic environment is a shared resource.

3. Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment.

4. Understanding the significance of places is vital.

5. Significant places should be managed to sustain their values.

6. Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent.

7. Documenting and learning from decisions is essential.

8. The document goes on to describe how heritage values might be assessed for any asset or place for their evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal values.

From this advice is then offered as to how the heritage significance of a building or place may be assessed.

From this information, then methods as to the managing of change to significant places can be assessed.

3. From these guides to understanding, Historic England's Conservation policies and guidance are set out.

Of those, the following are relevant to this application for change:

**Restoration**

**New work and alteration**

For Restoration normally to be acceptable to a place of heritage significance, it is suggested that:

"the heritage values of the elements that would be restored outweigh the values of those that would be lost;

the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place, and is executed in accordance with that evidence;

.....

the work proposed respects previous forms of the place; the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable."

For **New work and Alteration**, that should normally be acceptable if:

"there is sufficient information comprehensively to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place;

the proposal would not materially harm the values of the place, which, where appropriate, would be reinforced or further revealed;

the proposals aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future;

the long term consequence of the proposals can, from experience, be demonstrated to be benign, or the proposals are designed not to prejudice alternative solutions in the future.

11.05 **Local Planning Authority Guidance/Policies:**

1. The principal document of the Peak District National Park Authority is the **Local Development Framework Core Strategy**.

This is again too generalised for relevance to the proposals, but reference will need to be made to the following policies:

DS1 Development Strategy: "sensitive managed delivery in order to meet our purposes to conserve and enhance the Peak District".

L3 Cultural heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance - Cultural Heritage Strategy document - requires that the owners of assets should be:

"encouraging the refurbishment and reuse of disused or underused buildings to enhance their contribution to the historic character of an area".

a) Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of … assets and their settings.

b) Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset….

c) Development proposals will be expected to meet the objections of any strategy … that has as its objective the conservation and where possible enhancement of cultural heritage assets.

2. The next tier of policy documentation is the: **Saved Local Plan Policies**.

Of these Policy LC3 Design Layout and Landscaping states:

(318) Layout of buildings should respect and relate well to traditional pattern….etc., etc. For individual buildings, factors such as plant form, section or massing, and details…materials are important…..

Other clauses regarding **Listed Buildings** state:

(334) Best use of a historic building is very often that for which it was designed.

(335) Applications for development or work affecting a listed building should show why the works are desirable or necessary.

**03. Policy LC6 Listed Buildings** (as might be expected) states:

"a) Planning applications for development affecting a listed building and/or its setting should clearly demonstrate:

(i) how these will be preserved and where possible enhanced;

and (ii) why the proposed development and related works are desirable or necessary.

b) …

c) Development will not be permitted if it would:

(i) adversely affect the character, scale, proportion, design, detailing of, or materials used in the listed building;

or (ii) result in the loss of or irreversible change to original features or other features of importance or interest.

d) In particular, development will not be permitted if it would directly, indirectly or cumulatively lead to:

(i) - (iv) and (vi) - (vii) (not applicable)

(v) the replacement of original features other than with original materials and with appropriate techniques.

(viii) extensions of more than one storey to the rear of listed small houses or terraced properties."

**04. Supplementary planning guidance is offered by the Local Planning Authority's "Detailed Design Guide", being a Supplementary Planning Document to the emerging Local Plan, adopted in July 2014.**

For **Alterations and Extensions** this states:

"1.4 The Authority's policies seek to ensure new development will be controlled so that the valued characteristics of the Peak District can be conserved and enhanced.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy General Spatial Policy GSP3 requires all proposals for development to pay particular attention to impact on the character and setting of buildings, and be of a scale that is appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park.

Core policy L1 states that the development scheme and enhance valued characteristics, and L3 requires that development affecting cultural heritage assets must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of architectural and historic assets and their settings. Saved Local Plan Policy LH4 states that extensions and alterations should not:

- Detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring properties.
- Dominate the original building where it is of architectural or vernacular merit.
- Amount to the creation of a separate dwelling or an annex that could be used as such.

1.5 We expect… the work to be sympathetic, subservient to the original building, and limited in size. Insensitive design can spoil both an existing building and an area.

1.6 Principles of **sustainable development** should inform the design of alteration and extensions, as set out in:

- Design Guide Chapter 6
- Supplementary Planning Guidance: Climate Change and Sustainable Building
- P.D.N.P.A.'s Leaflet "Sustainability and Historic Buildings"

2.12 **Solar Panels** -

With regard to that sustainability, the following advice is offered for the proposed use of solar panels:

"Adding photovoltaic and solar thermal panels to a roof fundamentally alters its character and appearance. If panels need to be site on a roof, placing them on inner slopes where they cannot be seen is the ideal".

The Authority also publish a guidance leaflet: Design and Siting of Solar Panels, Conserving your Historic Building series of leaflets which confirm the same advice. This is stated to be:

- They should be in the least obtrusive location.
- They should be the least obtrusive type.
- They should be considered in conjunction with any reroofing of any existing building.
- The simplest configuration of panels should be provided.

3.00 For **Extensions**, the following advice is offered:

3.3 **Design Principles**

The key aim is to achieve a complementary relationship with the existing building and its context. There are 3 main factors to consider: Massing

Materials

Detailing and style

3.4 Massing -

Size smaller in volume and lower than the existing building.

Shape reflects the proportions of the existing building.

Location obvious location is the side or rear.

3.10 Spacing off (any) rear extension entirely so that it looks more like a subsidiary building linked minimally to the existing is another possibility. This allows the original building to retain its integrity…. An extension large enough to function in terms of an independent dwelling … is unlikely to be acceptable in policy terms.

Materials

3.15 Constructing the extension in the same materials as the existing house is the preferred option.

Detailing and style

3.17 It is easiest and usually best to copy the detailing and style of the original building.

3.18 With regard to style, another equally valid approach is to detail the extension in a more contemporary style. This is more easily achieved if the other two variables of massing and materials are both treated in a traditional manner. Any new extension, while being of its time, also needs to respect and be in harmony with the existing building. This means reinterpreting the original detailing in a new way respecting what exists at present and designing an extension whose details have a strong visual relationship with the main building.

4.00 Other material planning considerations stated can include the following:

4.2 Neighbourliness

Outlook

Amenity

Privacy

Daylight

4.3 Outlook and amenity

4.11 Landscaping

11.06 Historic England have also published guidance about solar panels: "Small Scale Solar Electric (photovoltaic) Energy and Traditional Building". This reiterates the Government's commitment to a reduction in the national dependence on fossil fuels by promoting alternative sources of energy, in the light of the growth in demand for domestic electrical consumption by 32% since 1970, and 19% since 1990. The guidance suggests that the principles of minimal intervention and reversibility are applicable for the provision of such panels, together with more detailed consideration as to the orientation of the roof slope, the effects of possible shading, and the effects on wildlife, principally bats and other bird life.

11.07 Key recent further advice is offered by the publication: "Solar Design Tips: Your 10-Point Guide". This is a reduced version of a Building Research Establishment Report: "Ensuring Place-Responsive Design for Solar Photovoltaics on Buildings" (2016) published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. This included a case study showing the acceptability of roofing an outbuilding within the curtilage of a historic country home with in-roof photovoltaic panels.

The "tips" offered by the document are the consideration of the following:

- Colour and contrast - try to make the panels visibly unobtrusive.
- Framing - to panels or not, to attempt to keep panels visually unobtrusive.
- Sizing - to coordinate with other components to appear more integral.
- Symmetry in panel layout.
- Coverage - to be proportionate to the overall roof size.
- Consider complementary features, such as rooflights matching the panels in size/positioning.
- Consideration of the panels’ mounting system - "in-roof" preferred to "on-roof".
- Roof location/positioning - attempt to make the panels as visually unobtrusive from ground level or nearby.
- Neighbouring roofs: attempt to match adjacent installation on similar roofs/dwellings. 12.00 ASSESSMENT

12.01 In this section it is hoped that the scope of the proposed works can be tested against the criteria and guidance regarding the decision making of proposals for change to designated heritage assets, as set out in the previous section.

12.02 Significantly different proposals to those now submitted were sent to the Peak District National Park Authority by Lisa Shell Architects Ltd. in 2015 seeking Pre-Application advice as to the likelihood of their being acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.

The Planning Authority's Pre-Application advice was offered by email and dated 22nd September 2015.

This stated that new outbuildings are normally acceptable in principle, provided that they would not harm the character, appearance or amenities of the host property. Consideration would need to be given to the scale, form and massing of the proposal in relation to the existing building and its setting, and the extent to which design details and materials reflect (the) traditions of local buildings.

Supplementary Planning Guidance set out in the Authority's Design Guide advises that any ancillary outbuilding should be designed in sympathy with the property it serves, with (the) materials and roof pitch(es) reflecting those of the host property.

The advice stated that the reinstatement of the ancillary outbuilding at the Rookery would be acceptable in principle.

The proposals as then designed were then described in detail, and the advice concluded that the design as then submitted was unlikely to be acceptable.

The design as now submitted has been significantly revised, specifically to overcome the stated objections as set out in the Pre-Application advice, as follows:

The proposed restitution of the former outbuilding would not now be linked to the existing house;

The design "ethic" of the redesigned proposal in its scale, form and massing has been reduced and simplified, to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed building. The roof pitches are now symmetrical, the eaves and ridge lines have been lowered, the accommodation proposed is for storage and plant on the principal ground floor level, with a mezzanine gallery at the upper level. The materials proposed fully reflect and adopt the local vernacular.

12.03 The earlier proposals also showed the proposed extension of a part of the rear Service Range, which were deemed in the Advice offered to have created a negative impact and therefore harm the significance/legibility of the listed building, and so would be unlikely to be acceptable.

That proposal has also been redesigned to attempt to retain as much historical fabric as possible, and sacrificing/rebuilding the previous late 19th Century addition to create the space required. The "out of scale doors" referred to in the Pre-Application advice have been omitted and replaced by timber components of typical sizes.

The internal space of the former Kitchen or part Servants' Hall is simply too small for a family dining table for a modest sized family in the 21st Century.

The other two internal proposed changes described in the Pre-Application Advice have been omitted in the submitted proposals.

12.04 The proposals are of a scale and scope such that the national planning guidance regarding proposed change to historic assets are only applicable in broad principle, all as set out at sections 11.01.01 and 02.

It is suggested that the proposals entirely meet the guidance of section 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of (this) heritage asset(s) and putting (it) to visible uses consistent with their conservation.

The proposed enhancement and upgrading of the facilities of this dwelling will achieve that aim.

It is suggested that the loss or harm to the significance of the dwelling in extending the Kitchen Dining area would be less than substantial, and would contribute to retaining the optimum viable use of the asset. (Sections 132 and 134 as described at 11.01.01).

12.05 With regard to the Planning Guidance to the NPPF described at section 11.01.02, it is suggested that the setting of the asset will not be compromised in any way by the proposed design as revised in accordance with the Local Planning authority Pre-Application Advice, that the revisions described to the original design have sought to minimise any assessed harm to be caused to the significance of the asset.

12.06 Historic England's various advices are fully described previously at 11.02, 11.03 and 11.04.

With regard to the setting of the existing house (document 11.02), it is suggested that the relationship of the proposed restitution of the former ancillary outbuilding to its original size and location as best can be plotted from documentary and photographic evidence as described/attached, to the altered and extended historic dwelling creates a minimal impact on short or long views into and across the property, and enhances it in "restoring or revealing a lost historic feature". (11.02.07.04).

At 11.03 guidance is offered to making changes to assets. It is suggested that the heritage significance of the existing dwelling is fully understood, and its development (and reduction!) over time. The changes proposed are the restoration of the former ancillary outbuilding, and the addition to the Kitchen and minor alterations to the interior as described, fully meet the recommendations set out. There is compelling evidence of the size, form and materials of the former outbuilding, which it is hoped to restore. That work respects the existing forms of the rest of the dwelling, and the works are indeed "those that are intended to reveal or recover something of significance that has been enabled, observed or previously removed". (Section 25 as noted at 11.03.02).

It is suggested that the reduced size and form of the proposed Kitchen extension meet the recommendations for Additions and Extensions. (Section 41 as noted at 11.03.03).

12.07 Similar advice from Historic England is set out in the Conservation Principles publication described at 11.04. The revised proposals as submitted meet the similar criteria for the acceptance of change for works of Restoration and New Work and Alterations as described.

12.08 The policies and guidance offered by the Peak District National Park Authority as the Local Planning Authority are fully set out at section 11.05 of this report. Suffice to say that there will have been those policies and guidance which will have contributed to the full Pre-application Advice offered by that Authority. No policies have changed in the interim, so it is expected that the advice would remain the same.

The advice offered a year or so ago has been fully accepted, and is reflected in the revised designs now submitted.

12.09 Both the Local Planning Authority and Historic England offer advice regarding the provision of photovoltaic roof panels to heritage assets.

It is believed that the advice has been followed, with the least obtrusive type of panel being proposed, in the least obtrusive location on the small facing (inner) roof slope of the proposed restituted outbuilding, facing away from the public roadside, and hillside above, in the simplest configuration, in conjunction with what is proposed to be the reconstruction of the roof structure, and its cladding with natural slates. 13.00 CONCLUSIONS

13.01 The present stewards of the Rookery have invested heavily in retaining and enhancing its features which give it such a delightful heritage significance. It is their family home, and the demands of a family of growing children have led them to the view that more space is required.

13.02 The family business is wine consultancy and sales, so a large secure storage facility is required. This is proposed for the principal floor level in the restituted ancillary outbuilding.

13.03 The house itself is not large, with two principal reception/living rooms and the Kitchen space. As is the modern mores, the Kitchen space is now not large enough to seat all members of the family and any member of unexpected guests, as teenage children are wont to produce!

As these children grow and their social works expand, they will require living space "out of their bedrooms", and their parents have the foresight now to try to create a "snug" over the proposed wine store in the restituted ancillary outbuilding.

13.04 It is believed that this document demonstrably shows an understanding of the historic, cultural, aesthetic and evidential significance and development of the house.

13.05 It is suggested that the revised and reduced changes now proposed in its continuing evolution as a family home will cause no harm to its heritage significance, and in fact preserve and enhance it. ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF ENGLAND

HISTORIC BUILDING REPORT

The Rookery Ashford in the Water Derbyshire

November 1992

Crown Copyright

Shelley House, Acomb Road, York YO2 4HB Tel: (0904) 784411 Fax: (0904) 795348 ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF ENGLAND

Derbyshire

Ashford in the Water

The Rookery

NGR: SK 191 696

NBR No: 86022

Summary

The Rookery is a two-storey house constructed in limestone rubble with stone slate roofs. It consists of a four-bay east-west main range with a three-bay rear wing extending north of its east end and a three-bay cross-wing at its west end.

The earliest identifiable phase is a mid-18th century house probably corresponding to the present main range, with a service room or rooms in the south end of the rear wing. Surviving features include a two-light mullion window in the east wall of the rear wing and a fireplace with a flat brick arch in the cross-wall of the main range.

In the second quarter of the 19th century the building was remodelled; according to tradition, these works were to provide accommodation for a mistress of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. A large cross-wing was added at the west end of the main range, containing a ground-floor drawing room and parlour, a stair and three first-floor bedrooms. At the same time the front wall of the main range was rebuilt, incorporating two identical entrances with canopies on scrolled brackets. In the west room of the main range a butler's pantry was created, leaving an L-shaped passage on the west and north sides. A narrow one-and-a-half-storey outshot was added on the north side of the main range, providing a cellar at semi-basement level, and at first-floor level a small room and access from the new stair to further bedrooms in the main range.

From 1943, while Chatsworth House was requisitioned for use as a girls' school, the Rookery was briefly home to the Duchess of Devonshire.

Report

The mid-18th century house probably had a two-room plan to the main range, possibly with a central entrance lobby immediately east of the present cross-wall. There was a lobby in this position in the 19th-century remodelling (see below), subsequently incorporated into the east room. A transverse beam towards the west end of this room supports two axial beams of uncertain date and probably marks the position of a removed cross-wall. The 19th-century arrangement may in this respect have perpetuated an earlier plan form, but the only surviving evidence for this is the great length of the present east room in proportion to its width. No original features were apparent in the east room of the main range, although from its relationship to the rear service wing it is likely that it was originally the housebody. The west room is divided from the suggested lobby by a stone cross-wall and is heated by a fireplace with a flat brick arch in this wall. The position of the room in relation to the service wing and the modest size of the fireplace suggest that it was probably the parlour. It is spanned by an ovolo-moulded transverse beam. This moulding suggests a 17th-century date, but the beam appears to be re-used: at its north end the moulding is stopped about 60cm short of the wall and at its south end it is unstopped; also, redundant joist seatings conflict with the wall positions. The floor of this room is of fossiliferous marble flags, probably of locally quarried Ashford marble. The first-floor rooms in the main range extend into the roof-space. There is no access to the roof and no trusses are exposed, but room divisions appear to indicate a four-bay roof.

The rear wing is bonded with the east gable of the main range and is probably contemporary with it. It appears to have been a single bay in length originally (though it is possible that further bays have been replaced by modern rebuilding of the north end) and was probably of one-and-a-half storeys. The east wall, like the masonry elsewhere on the 18th-century building, is unquoin. By contrast, the first-floor masonry of the east wall has gritstone quoins at the north end of the south bay, implying a later raising of the south bay to two storeys. The ground-floor room probably contained a kitchen or other service room. It is lit from the east by a two-light mullion window with iron glazing bars. This has double-chamfered jambs which might suggest an earlier date, but the lintel is plain and the mullion has a narrow chamfer inside and out, features which are more likely to be of mid-18th century date. Possibly the jambs are re-used. It is likely that the rear wing was raised to two storeys prior to the major remodelling of the 19th century. The gritstone quoins at the north end of the raised masonry are not paralleled on the remodelled work, and neither is the form of the east-facing window, which has a projecting sill and formerly had five vertical iron bars.

In the second quarter of the 19th century the main range was re-fronted, a rear outshot added against the north wall, and the large cross-wing added at the west end. All three elements are bonded with each other and constructed in unquoined limestone rubble (squared and coursed on the south and west elevations) with plain gritstone dressings. Tall stacks to the main range and cross-wing, constructed in squared limestone with moulded caps, belong to the same phase. These alterations are recorded in two watercolours in the Chatsworth Archives, probably dating from the 1840s. By this time the house belonged to the Devonshire Estate. Documentary evidence states that Elizabeth Warwick, mistress of William Spencer, 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790-1858), was installed in the Rookery in 1828.¹ This may well have

¹ John Peerson, Stags and Serpents: The Story of the House of Cavendish and the Dukes of Devonshire (London: Macmillan, 1983), p.129. Miss Warwick was also given 22 Dorset Square, Kensington. The houses of the 6th Duke's mistresses - which also included Dunsia House and Calton House, Edensor, and Heathy Lea, Baslow - were known locally as been the reason for the comparatively lavish refurbishment of the accommodation, the alterations providing high-status reception and bedrooms in the cross-wing and improved circulation in the remainder of the building. However, the first-floor room in the outshot has an inscription in the plaster reading 'Rvd Giles 1837', which provides another possible date for this phase.

The cross-wing projects both north and south of the main range, and also wraps around it on the north side. It has a projecting eaves course and shaped kneelers at the south gable. The south wall incorporates a large canted bay window on each floor. Room heights in the wing are considerably greater than elsewhere in the building, and the higher status of the rooms is also indicated by the use of plaster cornices. Much of the ground floor is taken up by a large drawing room, lit by the bay window and from the west, with a fireplace on the west wall (replaced in the 1950s). The north end of the ground floor is divided between a small parlour lit from the west, with a marble fireplace on the north wall; the stair; and a small unlit closet with a vaulted ceiling opening off a passage linking parlour and stair. The stair has marble steps, slender turned balusters and a ramped handrail. It curves around an open well to a north-south first-floor passage giving access to three bedrooms, and is lit by a six-light mullion and transom window on the north wall, composed of re-used parts of double-chamfered window surrounds. The principal bedroom is at the south end, lit by a Venetian window in the canted bay, and has an original marble fireplace on the west wall (with an inserted late-19th century cast

'birdcages' (information kindly supplied by Tom Askay, Archivist, Chatsworth House, and Max Craven). iron grate) and a vaulted ceiling.

The rebuilt south wall of the main range is characterised by square window surrounds to the two west bays and a single tripartite window to each floor lighting the two east bays. It incorporates two matching entrances, one at the west end, and one roughly central. Both have stone canopies on heavy scrolled brackets. The west doorway opens onto a passage along the west side of the original parlour, created by partitioning off a small room occupying its south-east corner. This is said to have been a butler's pantry. Although the partition has been removed, its position is apparent from mortices in the marble floor. It is associated with a reduction in size of the original parlour fireplace, which was provided with a small cast-iron hob grate decorated with figures in classical costume. The passage gives access to the drawing room in the wing and, at its north end, to the stair. It also continues eastwards from this point, via a lobby, to the rear wing.

The central doorway in the south wall probably opened into the lobby posited above, with access to the service wing beyond. The provision of two front entrances is unusual and might suggest that the building served a dual function. However, the position of the doorways seems to indicate a main entrance to the west and a service entrance in the centre of the main range, though if this is the case it is surprising that their relative status is not differentiated in some way. The large tripartite window lighting the east room suggests a relatively high status use - it may have been the dining room, positioned close to the kitchen and other services in the rear wing. The original rear wing may have been extended at this time, although in its present form the extension is modern. A single-storey westward projection at its north end appears to be of mid-19th century date, and was probably built abutting an earlier extension. Given the quality of the accommodation provided at this date at the west end of the house it is unlikely that the service rooms of the 18th-century house would have been adequate without expansion.

The outshot on the north side of the main range provided a cellar at semi-basement level and a small room and passage on the first-floor. The cellar is entered from the rear wing via a doorway with a segmental keystone arch, and consists of a single segmental-vaulted space divided by an original partition into two stores. The west store contains stone storage racks. The first floor is reached via a short flight descending from the main stair. The balustrade is identical to that of the main stair and appears to be contemporary with the remodelling. A passage along the south side of the outshot provided access to bedrooms in the main range. A room on the north side of the passage has a north-facing window. The present pitched roof probably replaces a flat or very shallow-pitched roof, causing the window to be cut down in height to its present 30cm.

Visited: Adam Menuge, Colum Giles Report: Adam Menuge 35mm Photography: Colum Giles

July 1992 The Rookery from the south-west, showing the added cross-wing.

From the north-east, showing the rear wing (and later extension). The ground-floor west room of the main range.

The staircase in the added cross-wing. The Rockery from the south-west, showing the added cross-wing.

From the north-east, showing the rear wing (and later extension). The ground-floor west room of the main range.

The staircase in the added cross-wing. Watercolour (circa 1845) of the Rookery, seen across the River Wye (Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement). The Rookery at Ashford-in-the-Water: a short history Situated on the edge of the Peak District village of Ashford-in-the-Water, The Rookery was originally a Derbyshire longhouse with adjoining farmyard, cottage and barn, probably originating from the sixteenth century. According to *The Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire* published in 1892, the ‘earliest inhabitants we can trace were the family of Milnes, say in the sixteenth century, now ennobled; it has since probably been the homestead of scions of two other baronial houses, the Fynneys and Cheneys’.

In the eighteenth century The Rookery was owned by the Bullock family, Lords of the Manor of Norton (formerly in Derbyshire and now part of Sheffield). The family had a reputation for eccentricity. Noah Bullock, built himself an ark on the Derwent and lived in it with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another member of the family who resided at The Rookery was ‘partial to intoxication [and] would sit on horseback for hours to drink huge quantities of beer, preferring such a position to the cosy hostelry of the village or his own drawing room’.

The Rookery was bought from the executors of John Bullock by the Sixth Duke of Devonshire (1790 – 1858) in 1821 for the sum of £4,000. It was described at the time as ‘a small estate’ and obviously included some land and possibly mineral rights for the nearby marble mines. According to Chatsworth’s records the house was in good condition and Duke, ‘The Bachelor’, needed to spend very little on the property to prepare it for his mistress, Elizabeth Warwick. Most of the money was spent on laying out the garden where it is recorded that he planted 200 roses bought from Paris. The Sixth Duke eventually had several mistresses installed in houses close to Chatsworth and The Rookery, being the first of these, became known locally as one of the ‘birdcages’.

Elizabeth Warwick didn’t spend a great deal of time at The Rookery. She had another residence near Marble Arch in London and apparently she disliked life in the country. The Duke had a stormy relationship with Elizabeth Warwick, which finally broke up in March 1838. However from transcripts of his diaries it is clear that the he developed a great fondness for The Rookery, riding out from Chatsworth to entertain guests there at the weekend. Among his regular guests were the Arkwrights and the sculptor Sir Francis Chantry who also came from the village of Norton. In September 1821 the Duke writes ‘I went to see the Rookery at Ashford – my new home…it is uncommonly pretty, by the clear rapid River Wye. I am fonder of this place each time of coming to it.’ The Duke took to fishing in the River Wye and on 31st December 1821 he writes ‘here ends the year 1821. It has certainly been a happy one for me. The causes of happiness have been…. the time spent at Chatsworth and The Rookery with Georgiana [daughter of the 5th Duke and Duchess of Carlisle] and her family.’ However in October 1822 he writes ‘my society bores me but my love for this place never ceases. It rained today and I drove to the Rookery and placed there my old travelling bed brought from Russia.’

Stone in all its forms was a passion of the sixth Duke. At the far end of the gardens, upstream from the house, was the Ashford Marble Works founded by Samuel Watson in 1748. Here items were fashioned from Ashford marble (‘Black Marble’) mined on The Arrock and in Rookery Plantation to the front and rear of the house. In March 1823 the Duke records that ‘he saw new columns at the works’ and a year later he chose a new chimneypiece for The Rookery. A chimneypiece of Ashford marble inlaid with Blue John can still be seen in principal bedroom. The Duke introduced Florentine green marble as an inlay in Ashford marble and an inlaid marble table, ordered for the Prince Consort, gained an Exhibition medal at the Great Exhibition in 1851.

Princess (subsequently Queen) Victoria visited The Rookery when she came to North Derbyshire with her mother, the Duchess of Kent, in 1832 at the age of thirteen. Her diary entry for October 20th reads: ‘we then went to the Rookery,...belonging to the Duke on the banks of the River Wye, very pretty and cool. From there we walked to the Marble Mills and saw how they sawed and polished the marble. There was a little cottage there that sold Derbyshire spar [Blue John] in different little shapes and forms, and some marble pieces too. We then drove home having bought a good many things.’

E. Rhodes in his *Derbyshire Tourist Guide* of 1837 describes the contemporary scene at The Rookery: ‘a little beyond the Church, we crossed the bridge on the left, and then followed the immediate bank of the river, in the direction of the Marble Mills; a short but very delightful walk. In our progress we passed the Duke of Devonshire's cottage ornée [sic], a secluded spot of uncommon beauty. The building is covered with trellis-work, even to the chimney pots, to which ivy has as yet, only in part aspired. Roses, jasmine, and passion flowers, are trailed amongst the deep green leaves of this elegant but insidious plant. Proceeding forward a few hundred yards, we crossed the river, nearly opposite to the Marble Mills.’

The distinctive tall chimneys on The Rookery were possibly designed by Joseph Paxton (1803-1865), appointed head gardener at Chatsworth at the age of 20 and who was responsible for building Crystal Palace in London for the Great Exhibition in 1851. Among many buildings designed by Paxton is Rose Cottage on Buxton Road immediately behind Rookery Cottage, which has similar chimneys to The Rookery.

The house and grounds at The Rookery were maintained by the Chatsworth Estate until 1848 but the property was let to tenants from 1838 onwards, the first tenant being the Rev. W.G. Giles who left in 1851 with £61 rent in arrears. In *White's Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred*, dated 1857, The Rookery is described as: ‘...an ancient mansion overgrown with ivy, having a fine lawn in front, and closely adjoining to the Buxton Road, is the residence of Edmund Hayworth, Esq. The house is sheltered from the north by lofty hills, whilst towards the east and west, noble timber trees skirt the grounds which are laid out with great taste. Here and there a lofty beech or spreading ash intercepts the view of the swiftly passing waters of the Wye, which is crossed by an ivy clad bridge, that gives additional charm to the whole scene. A rising woody eminence in front, closes the verdant prospect, which, though not extensive, is particularly pleasing and enchanting’. On Lady Day 1866 Alfred Sorby took over the tenancy at the Rookery. He died in Sheffield later the same year but his widow Agnes remained as tenant until her death in 1896. The Sorby family were well-known tool manufacturers in Sheffield and Henry Clifton Sorby (1826 - 1908) was a microscopist and geologist. His major contribution was the development of techniques for studying iron and steel with microscopes. This paved the way for the mass-production of steel. He was President of Firth College, Sheffield, which became the University of Sheffield in 1905.

Writing during Sorby’s time in the third edition of *On Foot Through the Peak* published in 1876, James Croston describes The Rookery as ‘an old-fashioned, nearly overgrown with ivy, delightfully situated in a shallow hollow by the sparkling Wye, where trim lawns and flower beds and tastefully laid out pleasure grounds have taken the place of the wilder charms of untrimmed nature. The gardens are environed by noble timber trees, in which a colony of rooks have established their abode, and in front an ivy-shrouded bridge which spans the river gives access to the plumy woods that mantle the opposite slopes, and adds its charms to the romantic beauties of the scene’.

During the First World War it is known that the house was tenanted by Walter C. Tinsley, Master of the High Peak Harriers. His son, Alan Deane Tinsley who fought in the Canadian Infantry (Manitoba Regiment) was badly wounded at Ypres and died, aged 28, at Roulers (now Roeselare, Belgium) on 13th May 1915. He lies buried at Roulers Communal Cemetery. A plaque was placed in his memory on the south wall of the nave of Holy Trinity Church, Ashford. In the 1930s the village of Ashford was bypassed by the main road, which now passes in front of the property rather than behind. The land was ceded by the Chatsworth Estate and the road (now the A6) is known as 'The Duke's Drive'. The Marble Mills had ceased production in 1905 and were partially demolished with the construction of the road. The agent’s house, which was separated from the mill by the new road, lies just beyond the end of the garden at The Rookery and is known locally as 'Marble Cottage'. An extensive collection of items made from Ashford Marble can be viewed at Buxton Museum.

The Devonshire connection with The Rookery was reinstated during the Second World War when Lord Andrew Cavendish (subsequently 11th Duke of Devonshire, 1920 - 2004) moved in with his wife and young family in 1943 to 1946. He had married the Hon. Deborah Mitford (1920 – 2014) in 1941 and she gave birth to a daughter, Emma, in 1943 and son Peregrine ('Stoker') in 1944 (now 12th Duke of Devonshire). With Chatsworth House requisitioned as a girls school and the male members of the family and household away at war, she lived at The Rookery accompanied by her baby daughter, a nanny named Diddy and Violet, an evacuee with two small sons as well as three dogs, a pony and trap, a pig and a cow. In her autobiography *Wait for Me: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister*, she describes life at The Rookery during the war: ‘in November 1943 Andrew embarked for Italy with his battalion. Our daughter Emma was eight months old and we needed a house of our own. I moved into The Rookery, a dark, damp house in Ashford-in-the-Water (the River Wye flows through the garden) belonging to the Chatsworth Estate. There were pigsties, stables and a paddock where I kept my driving pony. In the kitchen, a huge coal range took up one wall and smuts penetrated everywhere. The stove gave off such fierce heat, rapidly followed by the depressing sight of cold grey ashes, that our wartime rations were often inedible’. She goes on to record: ‘we paid rent to the Chatsworth Estate to live at the Rookery. Our income was small and I was appalled by the size of the estate bill for logs, our only form of heating apart from the ancient kitchen range.’ Apparently they did not use all the rooms in the house and the drawing room at The Rookery was filled with furniture and artefacts from Chatsworth.

Following the sudden death of the 10th Duke of Devonshire in 1950 at the age of 55, The Rookery (together with a number of houses in Ashford) was sold by the Chatsworth estate in 1956 to pay 80% death duties. These were finally paid in 1967. The Rookery was bought by the then tenant, Colonel H.D. Wise who resided at there until the late 1970s. The old kitchen garden, which lay to the east of Rookery Cottage, was sold off by Colonel Wise in 1959 and now forms an adjacent property known as ‘Miles Croft’. In 1970 the roof of the main house was replaced with gritstone used at the front of the house and Welsh slate at the rear, presumably to lighten the load. A number of stone-built outhouses were demolished in the 1970s as well as a flat-roofed extension at first floor level. The original service staircase from the kitchen was also removed and replaced by a new downstairs cloakroom and boiler room. From the late 1970s to the 2000s The Rookery had a succession of owners: Bernard Swayne, Mr and Mrs C. Macfarlane, Mr and Mrs R Lamb, Mr and Mrs I Humphreys. Rookery Cottage was sold off by the Macfarlanes in 1987. The Rookery was purchased by Mr & Mrs R Mayson in 2005 who then bought back Rookery Cottage in 2008.

The house, cottage, coach house and gardens, which extend to 9 acres on either side of the River Wye, are all privately owned. The ivy has gone (replaced by wisteria), the marble works has closed and The Duke’s Drive bypasses the village of Ashford and cuts through the grounds. Otherwise the Rookery is much as described in 1837, 1857 and 1876. The grounds of the Rookery include a brick-lined icehouse and tufa grotto, thought to have been built by the sixth Duke of Devonshire.

The Rookery, the Barn, Rookery Cottage and the bridge over the river giving access to the house are all Grade II listed.

Richard Mayson 2017

Sources: Chatsworth archives (by kind permission of Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire).

Devonshire, D., *Wait for Me!: Memoirs of the Youngest Mitford Sister*, London 2010

Tilley, J., *Old Halls, Manors and Families of Derbyshire*, 1892

Tomlinson J.M., *Derbyshire Black Marble*, Matlock Bath, 1996

*White’s Directory of Derbyshire, High Peak Hundred*, 1857